Standing Committee F

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Clause 33 - Discontinuance of proceedings before court appearance

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 176, in page 20, line 7, at end insert— 
'(c) the victim or victims of the offence, or in event of their being deceased or mentally incapacitated, their next of kin'.—[Mr. Blunt.]

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following: Amendment No. 177, in page 20, line 8, at end insert—
 '(2A) Where proceedings against a person in relation to an offence are discontinued under subsection (1), the Director must give reasons for the discontinuance of proceedings to those persons listed under subsection (2), unless in the Director's judgement to do so would be against the interest of justice or the public interest.'.
 New clause 2— Provision of reasons not to institute or continue proceedings— 
 '(1) Where the Director decides not to institute proceedings against a person or discontinues such proceedings he shall provide the Attorney General with reasons for his decision. 
 (2) The Attorney General shall, if requested by a person properly connected to the matter, provide a copy of those reasons to that person unless to do so would be against the interests of justice or the public interest.'.

Crispin Blunt: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike, and extend a welcome to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).
 Before lunch, the Minister intervened in my speech to emphasise just how limited the amendment was.

Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern and for his evident delight at my return, but such is my confidence in my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) that I have only popped into the Committee to check up on things.

Crispin Blunt: In previous sittings, it has usually been the Minister who has been speaking when we have adjourned for lunch. On one occasion during consideration of a previous Bill, he was able to go and consult his notes on the issue of national insurance numbers and find some arguments that he did not have in the morning. I am glad to say that, on that issue, the Government are now acceding to the wish of the majority of the parties represented on that Committee.
 Having had a chance to go and consider the substance of the Minister's intervention before lunch, I have reinforced my conviction that amendments Nos. 176 and 177 should be accepted. They place a duty on 
 the prosecution to disclose the discontinuance of proceedings when the prosecution has responsibility for handling a case and when the Director of Public Prosecutions has the ability to discontinue proceedings without the victim being aware of it. Of course, once the proceedings have gone to court, they have, in a sense, become public. Therefore amendments Nos. 176 and 177 deal with the situation in which the victim has no capacity to know what is happening and place a duty on the prosecutor to tell the victim. 
 I also took the opportunity to look at new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), which I will press to a vote if he does not. The new clause covers the wider position when the responsibility shifts from the police to the prosecutor to the court, at which point a judge could direct that proceedings be discontinued. 
 My amendments address the situation where the prosecutor is firmly in the lead and the victim would otherwise be unable to get a handle on the process or understand what is happening. New clause 2 would put a duty on the prosecutor to provide information when someone requests it. In circumstances where a victim has no direct involvement in the process before a case goes to court, it is reasonable to place a duty on the prosecutor to give the victim the information, but once the case has gone to court and gone public, it is reasonable for it to be up to those with a necessary interest to request that information from the prosecutor. 
 Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 and new clause 2 stand together as a group and should all be supported by the Committee so that such a duty will be placed on the prosecutor. I want to draw to the Committee's attention the whole background to the issue. If Committee members look at chapter 13 of the review, as well as chapter 4, which deals with the specific requirements on the prosecution, they will see that the entire shape of the debate about the rights of the victim is moving in the direction of giving victims information. The presumption in the review is that victims should get the information that the amendment would make it a duty on the prosecutor to provide. The amendments would provide an opportunity for the House to place a duty on the prosecutor to provide victims of crime with information about the discontinuance of proceedings. New clause 2 provides the opportunity for those who request that information 
''if requested by a person properly connected to the matter''.

Edward Garnier: In order fully to understand my hon. Friend's proposal, can we assume that, under amendment No. 177, the reasons given by the director for discontinuing and the director's judgment are matters that can be tested in court?
 New clause 2(2) states: 
 ''The Attorney-General shall, if requested . . . provide a copy of those reasons to that person unless to do so would be against the interests of justice or the public interest.''
Can we also assume that the Attorney-General—or someone, at least—would have to set out why to continue a prosecution would be against the interests of justice or the public interest, which would also be justiciable?

Crispin Blunt: That would be my assumption. As I said earlier, the process must be justiciable and subject to judicial review. That would address the concern that high-profile prosecutions, such as those against the security forces in Northern Ireland, simply do not happen.
 Finally, I draw the Committee's attention to paragraph 13.47 of the review, which states: 
 ''We recommend that wherever possible victims should be informed and consulted about the development of their cases. But when and how to consult them, particularly those who are witnesses, must be a matter for the professional judgement of the prosecutor.'' 
Nothing in the amendments that I have tabled violates the question of judgment that it is proposed is given to the prosecutor, who may make a proper judgment about the 
''interest of justice or the public interest''. 
The amendments capture entirely the tenor of the review and the wider debate about the involvement of victims of justice, and would give victims the information that they deserve at the beginning of the prosecutorial process, especially when it has been decided that prosecutions are not going to happen. The amendments are also consistent with other parts of the Bill that we shall discuss, including those relating to youth justice and information about the release of sentenced prisoners. They would make the Bill consistent and place victims at the forefront throughout the criminal justice process.

Lembit Öpik: I would prefer to speak after the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh in order to hear his views, but I shall put my question in the hope that he will address it in his comments.
 Although I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Reigate said about the importance of including victims' needs explicitly in legislation, I think that there is one difference of substance between amendments Nos. 176 and 177 and new clause 2. My interpretation is that there is conditionality in new clause 2, in the sense that the Attorney-General should inform persons connected with the case about why it was dropped only if they requested that information, and so long as it would not be against the interests of justice or the public interest. The Liberal Democrats believe that that condition makes sense and does not contradict the intention expressed by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). I hope that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh will clarify first whether our understanding is correct and, secondly, what he considers to be the relation between amendments Nos. 176 and 177 and new clause 2.

Seamus Mallon: I shall try to address the point raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. It is an attempt to adhere to recommendation 49, paragraph 4.167 of the review, which states that
''where information is sought by someone with a proper and legitimate interest in a case on why there was no prosecution, or on why a prosecution has been abandoned, the prosecutor should seek to give as full an explanation as is possible without prejudicing the interests of justice or the public interest.'' 
The review says that the information should be sought, but that does not necessarily mean that that is the only way in which to handle the matter. The hon. Member for Reigate argued that it should not wait to be sought, but should be dealt with without being sought. That is the reason for the wording in the new clause. 
 In general, I would be at ease with the two amendments of the hon. Member for Reigate. I have a little problem in that they apply to two types of case, in one of which the victim, an individual, has not had redress or satisfaction. Even in an individual case, there could be an issue of public interest and the interests of justice. Under the Bill, that is the responsibility of the Attorney-General, who should present a report to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly. They are to present the report to the Assembly. I included the Attorney-General in the new clause to cover such circumstances. If it were left with the Director of Public Prosecutions alone, not using the Attorney-General as a conduit, there might be difficulties. I await the Minister's comments, but I believe that the provision would give people the right to a response that would set out the reasons for the DPP's decisions in as much detail as the DPP considered to be appropriate. 
 The review group considered, in paragraph 4.164, that 
 ''Giving reasons for decisions to the public or interested stakeholders such as victims or the relative of victims is the most direct form of accountability in the explanatory sense.'' 
That type of accountability is at the heart of the amendments and the new clause. There is a further dimension in that public confidence in the prosecution service would be greatly enhanced if people could understand the reasons behind a decision not to prosecute. That would be particularly so in Northern Ireland. The overall effect would be in the best interests of justice.

Lady Hermon: I am delighted to see you back with us this afternoon, Mr. Pike.
 I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's compassion about contacting victims' next of kin, but will he discuss the increased burden of administration on the prosecution service, as well as the increased financial burden on it?

Seamus Mallon: There probably will be such burdens, but I ask the hon. Lady and others to try to assess the damage done when there has been no explanation. Let me give the example of the murder of Pat Finucane. Despite nearly 15 years of investigation, no one is yet any the wiser. The same applies to the case of Robert
 Hamill, who was kicked to death in Portadown. Before hon. Members rise to speak, I should say that there are many other cases.
 Inestimable damage has been done to the process of justice as a result of the failure to satisfy the public as to why prosecutions have not taken place. When that is weighed against an increase in cost or the administrative burden, I have no doubt where the balance lies. It lies in favour of an accountable system that is as transparent as possible and consistent with the interests of justice and of the public, and that above all makes the victim the priority. That would be utterly valuable. The hon. Member for Reigate spoke earlier of a personal incident.

Edward Garnier: I do not know the answer to two questions, so I shall ask them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) is a tremendous adornment to our Committee; I am pleased that she can contribute so wisely to our deliberations.
 Have the two cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred—Finucane and Hamill—not led to prosecutions because the investigations, no matter how long they have been going on, are continuing, or because a positive decision not to institute proceedings has been taken? If the former, they provide us with two examples that would fall outside his new clause. 
 That will do for the moment. I shall wait until the hon. Lady prompts me again.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the question, but I am not sure that I know the answer. The Minister will be aware that circumstances prevented a prosecution from taking place in the Hamill case. Has information on that been made available to inform the philosophy behind the amendments? I suggest not.
 When the negotiations on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill were concluding, those two cases and others had to be dealt with outside the legal process. That was the only means used to try to deal with them. It is better for the DPP, Attorney-General and the judicial process to deal with such matters openly and transparently. If they have to be dealt with in political negotiations, that may involve judicial figures, but not judges, the DPP and the Attorney-General.

Edward Garnier: The second question that I want to ask is what category of person does the hon. Gentleman contemplate being persons
''properly connected to the matter''? 
Does he mean only the immediate family of the victim—or the victim himself in non-fatal cases? Or does he mean that victim interest groups may also have some standing in the matter? It is quite important, because the courts can sometimes get clogged up with cases that are brought in order to make a political point rather than to find out something that an individual or family needs to understand.

Seamus Mallon: Over a considerable number of years, I have not noticed the courts being clogged for that reason. I think primarily of the victims and their families, but also of the wider interest that will provide
 the context within which the Bill will work to the optimum. Of course, there will be victims' groupings—there is no scarcity of them—but there will not be any if the cases surrounding victims are dealt with transparently, openly and accountably. That is the surest way to ensure that there are no victims' groupings. I hope that that will put into context what I intend by the new clause.

Tony McWalter: I agree with my hon. Friend's response to the intervention of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). It has been far too common for economic considerations to preponderate over the rights of victims, and I welcome his attempt to redress the balance.
 Would my hon. Friend address the point that I made initially to the hon. Member for Reigate? Clearly, a prosecution could be withdrawn if publication of the reasons for withdrawal—such as the intimidation of witnesses—would compromise the safety or welfare of innocent persons. Would my hon. Friend not agree that under such circumstances his new clause goes a little too far?

Seamus Mallon: I thank my hon. Friend. He suggests that the new clause might go too far, yet the hon. Member for Reigate said that it did not go far enough. I think that they are both right in a certain contradictory sense. The reality is that when a witness to a crime is threatened with violence, it is often the crime's victim and the victim's family who suffer—along with the whole process of justice. It is conceivable that there will be such cases in future, but that pattern has not developed over the past 30 years, and I do not see it developing now.
 Like the hon. Member for Reigate, I believe that we have the opportunity to address this serious concern in a way that would both strengthen the institutions of the state and build public confidence by ensuring that the justice system is transparent and accountable, and that there is a presumption of innocence. I seek support for new clause 2 and for the two amendments. I believe that they have a lot in common. 
 I was talking about the Bill to some friends at Munster. Sometimes we get too bogged down in the details. The real question is whether it will be possible to create a workable system of justice that will be supported by the people of Northern Ireland and give the quality of justice that we seek. If we ask that question, I have no doubt that the provisions are a large step on the way to gaining public confidence in that aspect of the Bill.

Des Browne: I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling the amendments and the new clause. It has given the Committee the opportunity to consider some very serious issues. I will treat them seriously, but if the Committee will bear with me for a few moments, I should also like to recount an anecdote. The hon. Member for Reigate told us about the villains who stole his good name, or rather something with his good name on it, and that reminded me of a young man charged with theft, whom I defended when I was a young solicitor. He was not the brightest individual. He stole an expensive pen and did what all of us do
 when we get hold of an expensive pen—he tested it. Unfortunately, he wrote his name on the desk blotter before he took off.
 Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 are designed to require the prosecution service to give the court, the accused and the victim of the offence the reasons for the withdrawal of charges. I intervened on the hon. Member for Reigate to point out the context of the clause 33. I understand, on reflection, that despite what I said the hon. Gentleman still considers that the amendment is effective. It is important, however, to understand that the clause would operate in a comparatively small number of cases—arguably in only a tiny number—in which a person had been arrested under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the prosecutor wished to withdraw the charges prior to the first remand. 
 The provisions concern the discontinuance of proceedings before the court appearance. In many cases, though not all, the withdrawal of the charge will not be the final decision on the case. In fact, the withdrawal of the charge may be designed to allow further preparation and necessary investigation, or consideration of the appropriate charge and marshalling of the evidence. 
 The withdrawal of the charge is likely to mean only that the prosecutor does not wish to pursue the matter at that point. That is why subsection (4) retains the option of prosecuting at a later date. The giving of reasons required by the amendment would be particularly inappropriate, because in the majority of cases the prosecutor, in deciding to withdraw, would be saying only that he had not yet made a decision about whether to prosecute the case.

Crispin Blunt: Plainly, in those circumstances, the victim of the offence has a right to know that proceedings have been stayed. The Minister has made a perfect case for the prosecutor exercising his judgment about the interests of justice. It would clearly not be in the interests of justice to explain the reasons for withdrawal in such cases. That makes the case for the amendment.

Des Browne: With respect, that is an ingenious argument. The hon. Gentleman cannot think of any circumstances in which reasons could be given. The amendment requires reasons but says that they do not need to be given in certain cases.
 The clause is not designed to provide for the giving of information. It is designed to address the administrative requirements and consequences of the decision made by the prosecutor. It is designed to ensure that the accused, who must be told certain information, does not have to appear before the court and that the court does not schedule a hearing when the charge has been withdrawn. The purpose of the clause is not to require the information behind decisions to be given out. Arrangements for informing those involved in the case will be dealt with in the code 
 of practice of the prosecution service. Clearly, various people will need to be told certain things but the code of practice will deal with that.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister seems to be asking the Committee to accept that there should be a duty on the prosecutor to inform the person who is required to appear in connection with the offence—the defendant— but no duty to inform the victim that the proceedings have been discontinued. That is grotesque. I am sure that, with a moment's reflection, the Minister would agree that the victim should have that information.

Des Browne: New clause 2 would impose a more general duty on the prosecution service to give reasons. In each case where a prosecution has not been instituted or has been halted, the new clause would require a copy of the reasons for that decision to be passed to the Attorney-General, who could make those reasons available on request to any person who had a valid interest in the case.
 Paragraph 4.167 of the review deals with the issue raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). It states: 
 ''We suggest that those regarded as having a legitimate interest in a case be confined for the most part to victims and their families.''

Edward Garnier: I want to return to the Minister's point about the code under clause 38. Without wishing to undermine the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument about the pressing need for victims to be taken into account in the prosecution process and the administration of justice, I accept the Minister's suggestion that the code is a more appropriate place to set out in writing provisions dealing with those concerns. However, will the Minister say whether at least a draft code will be ready for consideration by Parliament before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses? Obviously, the Minister and his team have been thinking about the Bill for some time because they have considered the review and the reply to it, so I dare say that they might have some idea about the contents of the code, especially relating to information to be given to victims by the Public Prosecution Service.

Des Browne: This is a detailed provision, which will have wide-ranging effects. It has caused significant additional work for officials in the Northern Ireland Office and for the DPP. I know that work on several aspects of the code is continuing, but, unfortunately, I do not know the position off the top of my head. I undertake to write to the hon. and learned Member about that.

Edward Garnier: Given that we are having a brief exchange about the code now, it might be encouraging if the Minister would undertake to consider the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate in support of his amendments.

Des Browne: I have no difficulty in giving such an undertaking. Those issues will exercise the mind of the director responsible for drawing up the code. That is why I referred to it in the context of my response to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Reigate. I cannot say when the code will be available in draft or any other form—it is not my direct responsibility to produce it—but I can say that the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised will be considered by the director who would, I am certain, have done so in any event.

Edward Garnier: I do not know what plans my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have for the amendment. However, if needs be I shall encourage the Committee to divide in order to keep the Minister up to the mark so that, when he looks back on this day, he will be encouraged to do what he ought to do.

Des Browne: I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he does not need to divide the Committee to keep me up to the mark; I have a track record. Although I have not been a Minister for long, I have not failed in my duty when it comes to giving undertakings. However, if he feels that he must do that, it is a matter for him.
 I was dealing with new clause 2 and had set out what I understood to be its import. The debate has made it clear that the issue of giving reasons for non-prosecution is complex, and that is borne out by the number of occasions on which it is dealt with by the review. Accordingly, Government policy in that area has been set out in detail in the criminal justice review implementation plan. The Government's position is that the interests of the victim must be balanced against other interests, such as those of the witnesses, and concerns such as damage to the reputation of or other injustice to an individual, the danger of infringing on the presumption of innocence and the risk of jeopardising the safety of individuals. Committee members will understand that the latter is particularly pressing in certain cases in Northern Ireland. 
 In each individual case in which reasons are requested, the prosecution service must come to a view as to whether it is possible to give reasons for non-prosecution. Where a proper balance can be struck between the concerns that I have outlined, the Director of Public Prosecutions will endeavour to answer a request for reasons for non-prosecution. The position is broadly similar to that in England and Wales and in the Republic of Ireland—in fact, I think that it is identical to that in the Republic. The review group acknowledged the importance of coming to such a balanced judgment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh for pointing out the respective provisions and to the hon. Member for Reigate for rehearsing them. 
 Recommendation 238 of the review acknowledges that consultation with victims should be 
''a matter for the professional judgement of the prosecutor''. 
The Government agree with that. However, notwithstanding the view of the hon. Member for Reigate, the amendments remove the scope for the 
 prosecutor to apply his professional judgment in such cases, and they are unnecessarily restrictive. More importantly, the full consequences could be regarded as contradictory to some other important aspects of the review. For example, new clause 2 would give the Attorney-General an operational role in the prosecution of offences. 
 I accept that neither the hon. Member for Reigate nor my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh will go to the death on the exact wording, and that they argue the principle. However, that operational role would contravene and undermine the relationship of oversight that the review envisaged.

Seamus Mallon: In relation to the interests of justice and the public interest, do not the role and function lie with the Attorney-General anyway? Is not the responsibility his? If so, how is that to be viewed as an operational involvement in every circumstance?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A distinction must be understood. The prosecutor must decide whether prosecution will lead to conviction, which involves an assessment of the sufficiency of credible and reliable evidence. Then there must be an assessment of the public interest in relation to an individual case, and a general assertion that a law officer has responsibilities and accountabilities in the public interest or the interests of justice.
 The Government believe that the decision in relation to public policy and sufficiency of evidence is for an independent prosecutor. To superimpose a role on the Attorney-General would involve him directly in the issues and the transfer of information in certain circumstances. It is an operational role for the Attorney-General to decide whether it is appropriate to transfer information in the context of individual cases. Doing so would not be to exercise a general public policy role or a general role that the Attorney-General may have in relation to his accountability to the Assembly.

Tony McWalter: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but does he agree that a general duty on the Attorney-General or the DPP to have due regard to such matters could be included in the Bill? It could be made explicit rather than implicit.

Des Browne: I accept my hon. Friend's point, which covers the important principle of the argument in which we have all engaged. By reference to the Government's position, which has been in the public domain since the implementation plan was drafted, I have sought to show that there could be another amendment in a different context, perhaps with other arguments deployed for or against, but I am trying to tackle the new clause.
 My final point is comparatively short. The amendment covers only one aspect of interest to victims, which is the giving of reasons. When we consider later provisions, we shall have an opportunity to consider other steps that have been taken, to which we have already alluded, that set a general context for improving the position of victims in the context of the 
 criminal justice system. However, I regret to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh and to the hon. Member for Reigate that, in the current context, and bearing in mind that there is that general context in the Bill, I am unable to accept the amendments.

Crispin Blunt: I am distressed by the Minister's rejection of the amendments, because they provide an opportunity to advance victims' rights in a particular respect. I fully accept that, in other respects, the Bill does exactly that—especially in relation to youth justice and the passage of information about the release of prisoners. However, it seems extraordinary that the Government are prepared to resist a general tendency at a stage in the process that is most invisible to victims, when the prosecutor is assembling the case and the case simply disappears beyond the victim's purview. The victim has gone to the police and made a complaint and, almost certainly, a witness statement, and will be expecting something to happen. The victim will know that someone is being questioned and on the receiving end of the police and prosecution authorities for the offence, but he, or she, has no rights to that information under the Bill.
 We are not asking the Government to do something completely new. The Minister said that such a proposal would make the situation analogous to that of the Irish Republic, but the review states: 
 ''We note that in the United States District Attorneys tend to be very open in explaining their approach in cases of major public concern, perhaps in part because of their elected status. The experience in Germany and the Netherlands has also shown that it is possible to formulate a system of giving reasons without prejudicing the cause of justice.'' 
We would not prejudice the causes of justice or public interest, as they are the tests in my amendments and the new clause.

Lembit Öpik: I listened to the case put by the Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is being somewhat intransigent in rejecting sensible proposals? The Minister even gives the impression that the Government are not willing to reconsider the matter on Report, despite the case made by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which explain why I am distressed at the Minister's opposition to the amendments. The Government and the Committee may successfully resist them at this stage, although we hope that they do not, as it is not really a party issue, and I hope that members of the Committee will surprise us by exercising their own judgment.—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the intervention of the Government Whip, who can tell when the Government's cause is weak, as it has been on other Northern Ireland issues on which we have eventually persuaded them to change their mind.
 The whole climate of opinion is moving in the direction of the amendments, so, if the Government resist them at this stage, I hope that we shall be able to reconsider the matter later. However, I certainly intend to press the amendment to a Division.

Seamus Mallon: I want to make it clear that I shall seek a separate vote on new clause 2.

Peter Pike: Order. May I give the hon. Gentleman some guidance? We shall take new clause 2 when we reach the appropriate point in the Bill, but I take note that he will want to move it formally at that stage.

Seamus Mallon: I am responding to advice from the Clerk, but I take your judgment on the matter, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike: That is the procedure. We will deal now with amendments Nos. 176 and 177. New clauses are dealt with once we reach the appropriate place in the Bill. We have properly debated new clause 2 with this group of amendments, but it cannot be moved formally until we reach that stage. Only then can the Committee divide on it.

Seamus Mallon: Thank you, Mr. Pike, for that advice.
 In any society, especially that of Northern Ireland, which has such experience and such division, the public make a judgment about the degree to which justice is seen to be done not just on the number of cases prosecuted but on those that are not prosecuted. I would be concerned about the effect that that could have on public opinion. I am not convinced by the Minister's argument that a presumption in favour of disclosure would preclude particular consideration in relevant cases. I am not convinced that the presumption of disclosure would prevent decisions being made in the public interest and in the interests of justice. For those reasons, I await with interest our debate on schedule 8.

Lembit Öpik: If a vote is called, the Liberal Democrats will support the amendment to make the principle point that it is not clear why the Minister is so resistant to what seems a sensible argument. We feel more comfortable with new clause 2, although I understand that it comes later. I am disappointed that the Minister was not more sympathetic to a common-sense proposal that seems genuinely sympathetic and is in the interests of victims.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 177, in page 20, line 8, at end insert— 
 '(2A) Where proceedings against a person in relation to an offence are discontinued under subsection (1), the Director must give reasons for the discontinuance of proceedings to those persons listed under subsection (2), unless in the Director's judgement to do so would be against the interest of justice or the public interest.'.—[Mr. Blunt.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Police complaints

Seamus Mallon: I beg to move amendment No. 201, in page 21, line 14, at end insert—
 '(3A) In section 55 (Consideration of other matters by the Ombudsman), after subsection (1) insert
 ''(1A) The Director shall refer to the Ombudsman any matter which—
(a) appears to the Director to indicate that a member of the police service may have—
(i) committed a criminal offence; or
(ii) behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings; and
(b) is not the subject of a complaint.'''.

Peter Pike: With this we may discuss amendment No. 202, in page 21, line 15, leave out
'in subsection (1) (in each place) and'.

Seamus Mallon: The amendments are directly connected. They attempt to clarify what the DPP must do if he receives information to suggest that a police officer has committed a criminal offence or has
 breached discipline, but a formal complaint has not been made. The DPP must refer such matters to the police ombudsman.
 The amendments are intended to give statutory effect to recommendation 21 of the review, which states: 
 ''We recommend that a duty be placed on the prosecutor to ensure that any allegations of malpractice by the police are fully investigated.'' 
Accordingly, the amendments would strengthen the Bill, which gives the DPP only discretionary authority to bring a matter to the ombudsman's attention. The review is fairly explicit. We believe that that recommendation—it also appears in paragraph 4.133—will strengthen not only the DPP and his office, but the position of the police. 
 In effect, the amendment is an attempt to avoid police bashing, and to avoid criticising the process of justice. Instead, it is an attempt to strengthen both the police and that process, to allow for maximum confidence in their operation and perception. I recommend the amendments.

Lembit Öpik: Once again, I am sorry to say that my questions for the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh might have been better in an intervention.
 The hon. Gentleman's intention is clearly to objectify and codify when something will be referred to the ombudsman. Nevertheless, the amendment does not do that, because somebody would still be required to make a judgment about whether an offence had been committed. The subjective nature of such a judgment could simply be bumped up one level, so that if the Secretary of State and the police authority were so inclined they could state that, in their judgment, there was no such indication. 
 Does the amendment achieve the hon. Gentleman's goal, or does it simply increase the pressure on the Secretary of State and the police authority to say, on occasion, that there is not sufficient indication that a member of the police force has committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings? If my concern is founded, that could serve to increase stress on the police authority, and that would worry me.

Seamus Mallon: I do not believe that to be the case. The amendment is consistent with the review's clear recommendation that a duty be placed on the prosecutor, and it attempts to define that duty. I know that it may not be the best way to approach the matter, but is it conceivable that, in some instances, the director should not ensure that an allegation of malpractice on the part of the police is fully investigated? If so, we shall need to make it clear in what circumstances he should not do so.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman has kindly outlined why he would prefer a duty to a discretion with reference to the review. Section 55 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, which the clause amends,
 not only treats the Secretary of State's power as discretionary, but states that matters should be referred to the ombudsman
''if, after consultation with the Ombudsman and the Chief Constable, it appears to the Authority or the Secretary of State that it is desirable in the public interest that the Ombudsman should investigate the matter.'' 
That section requires a consultation process. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee why such a process is omitted from his amendment?

Seamus Mallon: Mainly because I am not writing the Bill. The amendment is designed to ensure that, in circumstances where a police officer breaches the rules or does something that would lead to disciplinary proceedings, but is not yet the subject of a complaint, the DPP would have the power and the duty to deal with that.
 The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked what effect the amendment would have on the Policing Board. Let me be honest: if the Policing Board is not strong enough to maintain the highest standards in the police, then it will not survive. I am convinced that it will, and that openness of the type contained in the amendment will help it to do so. 
 The essence of the amendment is clear. We are in the midst of something new. We have had a horrific 30 years in terms of Northern Ireland society. Allegations have been made against the police and there has been mistrust of the courts. Those things will not disappear overnight; as legislators, we shall have to deal with them through the law that we write and the type of arrangements that we are making under the Bill. 
 I venture to suggest that, if we were dealing with any other country in the world except Northern Ireland, there would not be a whimper about the matter. I am not sure that there would be any reaction. However, I am aware that the issue raises hackles and causes concern. I do not live in a vacuum. I am aware of the attitudes that exist towards policing, the police ombudsman and the judiciary, but if the Bill is to work, we must place ourselves many steps above those attitudes. 
 I ask hon. Members to judge the measure on its merits. Is it not right that, if a police officer commits a criminal offence or behaves in a manner that justifies disciplinary proceedings, the DPP should have a duty to investigate? I am not sure that anybody in the Committee would disagree with that solely on its merits, but there are many connotations that might prevent such agreement.

Des Browne: As my hon. Friend fairly says, the amendment is designed to impose a duty on the director to refer matters to the police ombudsman for investigation if circumstances seem to indicate that a police officer has committed a criminal offence or has behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings and that police officer is not the subject of a complaint.
 As the hon. Member for North Down pointed out, the clause amends the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 to allow the director to refer such matters to the police ombudsman. As she said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, the clause puts the director on an equal footing with the Policing Board and the Secretary of State in such matters. Committee members should also understand that the power that the clause gives to the director, and the powers capable of being exercised by the Secretary of State and the Policing Board, are additional to the ombudsman's own power to intervene and investigate such instances as come to her attention. 
 It is not clear to me, other than by reference to the bold words of the review's recommendation, why my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh should wish to put the DPP in a more rigid position in relation to a set of circumstances than those responsible for the delivery of policing in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Down made that point, and it is important. Perhaps, in responding to the debate, my hon. Friend can articulate why he thinks the DPP should be put in a more rigid position than the Secretary of State and the Policing Board. 
 The argument for the absence of rigidity in relation to the Policing Board and the Secretary of State cannot simply be that if the board does not run the system properly, things will, in any event, go badly for Northern Ireland. I am not seeking to disparage my hon. Friend's argument by paraphrasing it wrongly, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the DPP should be put in a more rigid position and should not be allowed the discretion that both the Policing Board and the Secretary of State would be able to exercise, should the same circumstances come to their attention.

Seamus Mallon: Is it conceivable that there have been instances over the past 30 years in which the Secretary of State and the police authority did not proceed where there was a criminal offence, or where members of the police force behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary procedures? There is a difference between rigidity and the type of fluidity that will not add to the authority or the stature of the DPP. The ordinary person will accept the type of decision that we have made and will make about the DPP. The ordinary person will also want to see what will be done about potential offences by members of the police service. If the situation does not change, the nuances of the Minister's argument will not be conclusive where attitudes to the new system are concerned. The Minister should reconsider what will be required of ordinary people like myself in relation to the final outcome of the Bill.

Des Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, with due respect to all other members of the Committee, recognises better than any of us the nuances of arguments. In the short time in which I have been in the House, I have tried to learn from people like him how to deploy the nuances of arguments. It is important that the subtleties of this
 argument are understood. I shall try to explain the thinking behind our attempt faithfully to implement the review's recommendation.
 The recommendation is not that subtle; it expresses a duty to ensure investigation. When it comes to me, as the Minister responsible, to be translated into a statutory provision, that has to be done in a context in which the people of Northern Ireland live and other public officials in Northern Ireland operate. One of those officials is the ombudsman. A bald interpretation of the recommendation would cut right across the ombudsman's responsibilities, because she is charged with a duty to investigate in many such circumstances. Skill and nuances had to be adopted in order to turn the interpretation of those recommendations into a statutory provision. That is why the statutory provision that we are dealing with could not be seen to be usurping the position that the ombudsman already enjoys in relation to the investigation of complaints against police officers. There must be a balance. What does one do? How does the DPP ensure full investigation in those circumstances? 
 One can ensure full investigation by referring the matter to the ombudsman, but that is not the only way in which matters can be investigated. My hon. Friend suggested that there were no circumstances in which it would be palatable for the DPP to do anything other than refer the matter to the ombudsman, but there are trivial infractions of disciplinary codes. My hon. Friend's amendment would require the DPP to send a trivial infraction of a disciplinary code to the ombudsman for investigation, although it could easily be investigated and dealt with by the Chief Constable. The DPP would be prevented from applying his discretion and common sense to a set of trivial circumstances. 
 The second possibility is that if the DPP intended to prosecute a police officer on the strength of evidence in a certain set of papers, he would not be able to do so because the provision would oblige him to refer the matter to the ombudsman for investigation. In fact, the prosecution of a police officer for a criminal offence, if there were sufficient evidence and a clear public interest in prosecution, would be delayed by referral to, and investigation by, the ombudsman. 
 The Government share my hon. Friend's objective of implementing the review recommendations, but when we take into account trivial and very serious cases and the existing role of the ombudsman, the matter is not as simple as it first appears and contains some nuances. 
 For those reasons, we believe that the provision is sufficient to allow the director to fulfil the duty that the review recommended should be placed on him to ensure that those matters that find their way to his desk are investigated properly, but not exclusively by the ombudsman.

Seamus Mallon: It should be noted that the amendment says ''refer'' to the ombudsman—nothing further. I completely agree with the Minister about a lesser type
 of matter, which would, under present legislation, be dealt with by the Chief Constable. I do not envisage that such a disciplinary matter should be dealt with by anyone other than the Chief Constable, but we need to ensure that the stringency that we place on the DPP in relation to the entire community also applies in this instance.
 The Minister makes a strong case, and part of its strength lies in the fact that the ombudsman can choose to become involved, but surely the process will be more transparent if someone of the stature of the DPP is involved in referring a case to the ombudsman—I am not talking about trivial disciplinary matters. I do not think that that would have the implications that the Minister envisages.

Peter Pike: I call Mr. Browne.

Des Browne: I am not sure that that was an intervention, Mr. Pike, but I will treat it as such. I thought that I had finished, which is probably why I was so relaxed, and now I must wind myself up again.
 My hon. Friend argues persuasively, but the strength of the argument is in my favour. For the reasons that I have given, including that relating to the most trivial and the most serious cases, the DPP should continue to enjoy some discretion, but we are giving him no more discretion than the Secretary of State or, more importantly, the Policing Board already enjoys in this context. That is a powerful argument.

Lady Hermon: May I try to give the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh some peace of mind? I listened carefully to his earlier remarks, particularly his mention of the Hamill and Finucane cases. We are discussing section 55(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, but I would like to quote subsection (2). It states:
 ''A Chief Constable shall''— 
it is clearly a duty— 
''refer to the Ombudsman any matter which appears to the Chief Constable to indicate that conduct of a member of the police force may have resulted in the death of some other person.'' 
When a death has occurred, the Chief Constable already has a clear duty to refer such serious cases to the ombudsman.

Des Browne: I suspect that cases do not come any more serious than that, but it may be of some comfort. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the genesis of that provision. It was thought necessary in Northern Ireland to give the ombudsman a compulsory power to investigate in certain circumstances. It is not the only matter that is required to be referred to the ombudsman by the Chief Constable in which the former has an investigatory or supervisory power. I merely encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh to consider this provision as part of a complex web of provisions that are designed to meet the objective that both he and the Government seek. However, they can come into conflict with each other if they are not drafted so as to fit into the existing legal structure.

Tony McWalter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the power and energy of his argument. Would he agree that in addition to escalating trivial cases, the amendment could have the serious effect of escalating cases of malicious accusation, which is another important consideration?

Des Browne: We are all conscious, from our experience as Members of Parliament, of the dangers of malicious complaints. Society is becoming more skilful in dealing with them, but we have to trust the people to be appointed to such positions, particularly the person who will occupy the position of the DPP, of being capable, from their substantial experience in that area of the law, of identifying malicious complaints. I can see the merit in my hon. Friend's argument that we must be alert to malicious complaints, but I would rather trust in the abilities of the people who are appointed to such positions than in legislation to give that protection.
 I cannot usefully add to my argument. I hope that I have convinced my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment. That is not to say that we cannot revisit the subject. Should he find a formulation that has the necessary nuances, I would be happy to debate it with him, but I hope that I have convinced him that he can safely withdraw the amendment.

Seamus Mallon: I must state that the Minister made a powerful argument. He made three convincing points—at least they began to convince me. The first was about the power of the ombudsman to involve himself. The second, which was valid, was about the constraints that the amendment might put on the DPP with regard to the action that he could take—not with regard to referrals but in terms of his position. The third point was about the Policing Board. Those three points, together with the point raised by the hon. Member for North Down, lead me, reluctantly and against my better judgment, to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Information for Director

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in page 22, line 2, at end insert—
 '(6) Where the Director is not satisfied with the information provided to him by the Police he may refer the case to the Police Ombudsman for investigation.'.
 This is a philosophically not dissimilar amendment to the ones that we have just debated, tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, in that it gives the Director of Public Prosecutions power to invite the police ombudsman to conduct an investigation. Clearly, there must be some passage of information from the police to the director in order for him to be able to put a prosecution together. He may not be satisfied that he is getting the necessary information from the police. It is idle to conjecture about all the circumstances in which that might arise, which might 
 include the professional incompetence of some policemen in putting briefs together, or relate to wider problems of the police obstructing a prosecution for reasons of their own. 
 These matters may be covered in other legislation, so I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply. However, it struck me on reading the Bill that the DPP should have some form of power at his disposal to be able to ferret out information, if he is not getting it from the police, and that it would be difficult for him to do that directly. Although it is essential that the relationship between the police and the DPP works well, individual circumstances may exist when it does not work well. 
 I do not imagine that the DPP would use the power that the amendment would give him with anything other than the greatest hesitation, given the damage that it would do to the relationship between the relevant part of his office and the part of the police force that was investigated. The amendment would simply reinforce the director's position, giving him the power to search for information when he thought that he was not being properly served by the police. 
 As with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that we have just debated, this is in no sense meant to be an anti-police measure. It is merely meant to give the DPP the opportunity to have some investigatory force to go after information, if circumstances require. If the power exists elsewhere within the system, I am content to withdraw the amendment.

Des Browne: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, in the Government's view, what he seeks to do is achieved elsewhere in the Bill. The debate on the previous group of amendments concentrated on the mechanism that is used to give the DPP the power to refer matters for investigation to the police ombudsman, if the director considered that they would amount to a disciplinary offence. That is achieved by an amendment to section 55 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, which is contained in clause 35(4). The mechanism is to add the DPP to a shortlist of bodies, people , the Secretary of State and the Policing Board, thus empowering him at his discretion to report matters to the ombudsman for investigation.
 If that reassurance is sufficient for the hon. Gentleman, perhaps he can be persuaded to withdraw the amendment. I understand that in some circumstances the DPP may think that he does not get sufficient information, but I am not sure that it is the intention to use the ombudsman as a police service to investigate the individual circumstances of an alleged offence. That would be entirely inappropriate. 
 The ombudsman can investigate the failure of the police to carry out their duty. That is how the Bill is structured. One would hope that, if there ever were such a situation—I cannot imagine it developing, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to cover all bases—the complaint would work in the following way. If a report to the ombudsman were upheld, the 
 police would be compelled to carry out an investigation and provide information in relation to the reported offence to the DPP. 
 The amendment suggests that if the police are not prepared to investigate and provide information to the DPP, an ombudsman should be used to do that in a normal policing investigative role. That is not what the hon. Gentleman wants, so he should find comfort in clause 35(4) and its interaction with section 55 of the 1998 Act. If he does not, I shall listen to him carefully again as to what role he thinks the ombudsman can play in an individual case.

Crispin Blunt: I have found comfort, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt: It is appropriate to discuss disclosure in the light of the Bill. There is wide concern, especially among the legal profession in Northern Ireland, that a duty of disclosure will be placed on the police and the DPP to give information to the defence. A submission from the Law Society and comments by the Criminal Bar Association showed that those organisations were anxious that the duty should appear in the Bill. If it were to be included, it would be in the clause.
 The review and the Government's response to it both kick the issue off to a law commission. Paragraph 4.143 of the review is about disclosure, and concludes that 
''we believe that the present disclosure provisions should be reviewed and suggest in Chapter 14 that this might be one of the matters for consideration by a Law Commission.'' 
The subject is clearly of concern to the profession, and it has obviously been difficult to phrase a requirement on disclosure that could appear in the Bill satisfactorily. I have not been able to do so—I have not had sufficient time or resources—or I would have tabled an amendment on the subject. However, it is appropriate to flag up the issue in this clause stand part debate, and to ask the Government whether they actively considered a formula to meet the disclosure requirement sought by the legal profession. 
 There may be reasons for the Government to continue to resist such a formula, even after a law commission has considered it. However, it is appropriate to ask them where they stand on disclosure, as they seem to have taken a rather neutral position. The review found it difficult and kicked it off to a law commission. When matters are kicked off to commissions of any variety—law, royal or anything else—the ball disappears into extremely long grass. Frequently, it never returns to visibility. What is the Government's thinking on disclosure?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that the clause is about the orderly circulation of court papers. Like all other parts of the Bill that relate to the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, it is about what lawyers call procedure. Issues to do with
 disclosure are in a different body of the law: that of evidence. No part of the Bill deals with the law of evidence.
 That does not mean that we cannot mention disclosure in the context of information, as the hon. Gentleman appropriately did with reference to paragraph 4.143 of the review. I am not privy to the review's discussions on the issue, but I sincerely doubt whether a review that involved the passing of information could take place in any jurisdiction without the legal profession raising disclosure. Even with reference to full disclosure, I am sure that the legal profession would raise the subject for discussion. In practice, it is a complex aspect of the law. 
 The review did not consider disclosure, but I do not accept that it ducked the issue. It flagged it up as something for consideration by those with expertise. We should bear in mind the fact that the review recommended that such people be formed into a commission, as they had the skills to consider such complex matters. In the face of that recommendation, it is incumbent on the Government to set up a law commission to do such work. The Secretary of State will then remit certain matters to that law commission to consider, and the Committee can rest assured that when priorities are set for it, issues specifically referred to by the review such as disclosure will be considered for priority. 
 Other bids for priority will be made from other sections of the community of Northern Ireland. I can guarantee that at least three or four bids will be made from lobbies to do with children, suggesting that a law commission address the welfare of children as a matter of priority. The Secretary of State will then need to apply some consideration as to what is priority. That is the Government's position. It is not a position of no action— 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Des Browne: I shall conclude my remarks on the case advanced by the hon. Member for Reigate. The rules of disclosure are important, which is why they occupied the review group's time. It is the Government's intention that they will be a priority for a law commission when one is convened, subject to other priorities. I can guarantee that whatever recommendations are made will be complex and will require extensive consultation, not only with the legal profession. At the end of that process, I hope that there will be an opportunity to revise the rules of disclosure in Northern Ireland, and that the Assembly will be able to do that work.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Code for Prosecutors

Seamus Mallon: I beg to move amendment No. 203, in page 22, line 30, at end insert—
 ( ) The Director must consult with-
(a) the First Minister and Deputy First Minister;
(b) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and
(c) any other person appearing to the Director to have an interest in the matter, before finalising, or making alterations to, a code.'.
 Amendments Nos. 203 and 204 are linked, and are intended to bring the Bill more closely in line with recommendation 50 of the review group. That included the recommendation that the DPP be required by statute—

Peter Pike: Order. I am prepared to accept the two amendments as being grouped together if that will facilitate the process.
 Amendment No. 204 reads: in page 22, line 30, at end insert— 
 '( ) In exercising his functions under subsections (1) and (4), the Director must have regard to the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors.'.

Seamus Mallon: I am sorry if I was out of order, Mr. Pike. The DPP would be required by statute to publish codes of practice and ethics, the latter being based in part on the standards set out in the United Nations guidelines. The new Northern Ireland Policing Board, which has various types of representation, is drawing up codes of practice in terms of its remit, which are essential given the importance of the DPP's position.
 The United Nations guidelines on the role of prosecutors are especially relevant. In line with the review group's recommendation, it is important to place a duty on the DPP to have regard to the guidelines in drawing up codes for the prosecution service. The first part consultation with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is an attempt to ensure cross-community support for the code of ethics that I hope will be proposed by the DPP. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will ensure conformity with human rights and standards. There are further implications because the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission might include in that consultation non-governmental organisations and agencies. Enormous strength could derive from this if it is done well and handled properly. 
 I will not die at the ditch over the wording of the two amendments because I recognise that there are difficulties. They could be tidied up, but I want to put them on the record. I strongly urge the Minister to examine how the principles underlying them may best be applied. If he can give me such an assurance, I shall not press the amendment, but I shall wait for inspiration from him or hope that somehow I am able to raise that inspiration at a later stage.

Lady Hermon: I am glad to be able to record that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and I have found ourselves in agreement this afternoon.
 However, the agreement was, alas, only in part, and I should not want to build up false hopes. I shall give the good news first, and then come to the bad news.

Des Browne: That is a nuance.

Lady Hermon: That is right.
 In paragraph 3.25 of the criminal justice review, the review team recommend that 
''human rights issues should become a permanent and integral part of training programmes for all those working in criminal justice agencies, the legal professions and the relevant parts of the voluntary sector.'' 
On the basis of that recommendation I am happy to support the part of the amendment of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that refers to consultation with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Given my track record of criticism of it, that is a major advance on my part. 
 The bad news is that I am concerned by the reference to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I am specifically concerned by it because of the terms of reference that the review team lays down in the agreement, which are usefully quoted on page 2. The review group was duty bound under its terms of reference to consider 
''arrangements for the organisation and supervision of the prosecution process, and for safeguarding its independence.'' 
Quite frankly, I do not believe that it is appropriate that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—I notice that on this occasion they do not have to act jointly—should consult on the code for prosecutors when two MLAs are being consulted. 
 Paragraph (c) of the new subsection proposed by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh concerns me because it is open-ended and too wide. It mentions 
''any other person appearing to the Director to have an interest in the matter''. 
I would like him to give some idea of the scope of the provision and of the people who are covered by that paragraph.

Seamus Mallon: I welcome the hon. Lady's support for the consultation with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I take it from the UN guidelines that the role of prosecutor is very important. I welcome that. I note what the hon. Lady says about the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The reason why ''acting jointly'' is not included is because theirs is a passive role. The function rests with the DPP. The hon. Lady said that she would go home and read the Northern Ireland Act 1998 carefully and note whether, when there was reference to passivity, it was different from that which was a function. I know that she is going to score an interesting point now; let us hear it.

Lady Hermon: I gave an undertaking that I would refresh my memory about the agreement. My concern was that subsequent legislation might have extended its meaning. When I read the agreement, I noticed that it said:
 ''Key decisions requiring cross-community support will be designated in advance, including election of the Chair of the Assembly, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, standing orders and budget allocations.'' 
Those are very definite categories in which there should be cross-community support. In other cases, such decisions could be triggered by a petition of concern brought by a significant minority of Assembly Members. Nowhere in the agreement, which I have signed and which the vast majority of people supported in referendums both north and south, are the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister tied together at the hip.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. She is right about the decisions of the Assembly. The decisions that are to be made with cross-community support are specified as those on the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, budgetary arrangements and the human rights content of the agreement. There may be another.
 My crucial point is that the functions of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are joint. What comes as a more terrible shock is that they are not only joint, but joint and equal. That takes some people by surprise, but that is what is in the legislation, which was written not by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, but by Parliament. That is the reality, and if we are to get to grips with the essence of the Bill and other legislation, we must realise that they hold a joint equal office, reflecting the joint equal decision-making process and what was known in the negotiations as parallel consent. 
 The hon. Lady asked about other organisations. I immediately think of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and several others that may be able to make an input. The Probation Board for Northern Ireland may be another. All those organisations need to be explored, and I agree with the hon. Lady that there is an open-ended quality about the amendment that encourages me not to press it to a vote at this stage.

Crispin Blunt: I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for North Down in principle, if not entirely. She is right that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should not have a role in the proceedings precisely for the reasons that she adduced about political independence. That he must consult with
''any other person appearing to the Director to have an interest in the matter'' 
is the ''Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all'' paragraph. One must trust the director a little. If one is simply unable to name the people with whom he will have to consult, they are already in clause 42(3), which requires him to consult with the Attorney-General and the Advocate-General before bringing the code of ethics into play or altering it. That strikes me as the appropriate balance, as the Advocate-General will remain accountable in this country, and the Attorney-General will be able to answer questions in the Assembly. However, that also means that the director retains his independence in framing the code.
 It is not appropriate to name the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission above and beyond many other bodies that also have a legitimate interest. One must assume that when the director frames the code, he will consult where he considers it appropriate to do so. Those whom he consults are likely to be appropriate consultees. I depart slightly from the hon. Lady's view in that it would be incorrect to put the Human Rights Commission on a pedestal that was equivalent to the Attorney-General and the Advocate-General. 
 My views on amendment No. 204 offer more comfort to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. The director should have regard to the United Nations guidelines on the role of prosecutors. It is appropriate for that to be included in the Bill, so that the Director of Public Prosecutions will take that as his starting point in framing the code of ethics. Combining that with the requirement to consult with the Attorney-General and the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland meets the aims of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman wants to press amendment No. 204 to a vote, he will have my support. He does not have my support for amendment No. 203.

Des Browne: When I first spoke to the amendments, my original view was that the provision for consultation with the Attorney-General and Advocate-General, to which the hon. Member for Reigate referred, was sufficient as set out in clause 42. Like the hon. Gentleman, I thought that it would not be appropriate to be more prescriptive on consultation at this stage. However, I have considered the provision further and, for the reasons that all hon. Members have articulated in the debate so far, I can see a role for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the consultation. The hon. Member for Reigate can also see such a role for the commission in the consultation, which was the thrust of his argument--until he explained that he did not think that it was appropriate because it would put the commission on a par with the Attorney-General and the Advocate-General. I accept that point. I can see a role, but for the reasons that have already been articulated, I cannot see a role for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in this process. I certainly cannot see a role for an unlimited group of people who are not capable of definition.
 On amendment No. 204, the Government endorse recommendation 50 of the review that the code of practice and ethics should be based on the UN guidelines on the role of the prosecutor. The guidelines will provide an invaluable benchmark for standards in the prosecution of offences. It is inconceivable that the Director of Public Prosecutions would not consider such an instrument when he is compiling a code of practice or ethics. Whether it would be appropriate or necessary to put that— 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—
 It being after Seven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Orders of the Committee [29 and 31 January 2002], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Question put and negatived.
The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 39 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 2Provision of reasons not to institute or continue proceedings

New Clause 2 - Provision of reasons not to institute or continue proceedings

'(1) Where the Director decides not to institute proceedings against a person or discontinues such proceedings he shall provide the Attorney General with reasons for his decision.
 (2) The Attorney General shall, if requested by a person properly connected to the matter, provide a copy of those reasons to that person unless to do so would be against the interests of justice or the public interest.'.—[Mr. Mallon.]
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:— 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 13.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 - Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

Crispin Blunt: I do not have many issues to raise, but I want to follow up the question of payment. The Secretary of State will presumably appoint the chief inspector both before and after justice is devolved. Paragraph 2 of schedule 8 places a duty on the Secretary of State to pay the chief inspector's salary, allowances and pensions. Under paragraph 3 the chief inspector employs staff subject to the Secretary of State's approval.
 After justice is devolved, I assume the responsibility for paying the chief inspector will remain with the Secretary of State and not be given to the Legislative Assembly. Will the Minister confirm that, and explain how to differentiate the provisions under paragraph 2 and others where the responsibility for payment devolves? Does the responsibility for food and rations, payment of the chief inspector and so forth remain with the Secretary of State? If it is devolved, why is that, given that the Secretary of State makes the appointment and is responsible to this place rather than to the Legislative Assembly? If the devolved Administration assumes responsibility for budget provisions and payments, the Secretary of State will be taking decisions about the size of the chief inspector's salary for which he is not accountable to the Legislative Assembly. An apparent contradiction in accountability arises. Will the Minister make the position clear?

Des Browne: I shall endeavour to do so in response to that reasonable question. Where functions do not come into effect until post-devolution, the Bill clearly states that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have responsibilities for the aspects of the schedule that the hon. Gentleman highlighted. Where the Government intend to put a chief inspector in place before devolution, the Bill establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. When the functions are subsequently devolved by order under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the relevant Minister in the Executive rather than the Secretary of State will be responsible. The order achieves the devolution.
 As the chief inspector is expected to be appointed before devolution, for the period leading up to devolution, the schedule details the Secretary of State's responsibilities and the relationship between the chief inspector and the Secretary of State. When matters are devolved, the order will transfer functions to the relevant devolved authority. I hope that that is clear. The function of appointing the chief inspector will be devolved. Although the first chief inspector may be appointed by the Secretary of State, the function of appointing subsequent chief inspectors will be devolved, as will all the other functions spelled out as belonging to the Secretary of State.

Crispin Blunt: That is extremely clear. Am I correct in my understanding that none of the references in the Bill to the Secretary of State will survive if the entire justice function is devolved? I have been under the impression that some residual functions in the Bill have been left with the Secretary of State. I may have misunderstood the position and misdirected myself, but I have been anxious that we make those responsibilities clear in the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that after devolution references to the Secretary of State will be replaced by First Minister and Deputy First Minister, usually acting jointly?

Des Browne: That is a demanding question to ask even a Minister about a Bill of this size. However, I can answer it in respect of the principles involved. When
 responsibility is devolved, what the hon. Member for Reigate suggests is by and large correct. In the event of an interregnum before devolution, that will not apply to all the references in the Bill to the Secretary of State. I shall check that. At this stage of consideration of a Bill of this size, I am not prepared to answer categorically. However, the principle that I enunciated and that the hon. Gentleman kindly said was clear applies to all cases in which something will change before devolution and devolution follows. That is the best that I can do at the moment. That does not apply to the Secretary of State's functions in the excepted field or the reserved field. Functions in the reserved field that relate to criminal justice will, by and large, be devolved.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful for that clarification. I am left with just a hint of opaqueness in my understanding of precisely which areas will be devolved and which will be reserved. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give a comprehensive answer now, but I invite him to write to member of the Committee well before Report, so that there is time to table amendments if the position is unclear and hon. Members want to change responsibilities between the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the Secretary of State. The Bill needs to be clear about which areas automatically relate to devolution of justice and which do not, and at the moment it is not.

Des Browne: I should make myself clear, because I am not sure that the last few sentences of my contribution were exactly enlightening. All references to the Secretary of State in the schedule relate to the reserved field, which will be devolved when criminal justice is devolved. The hon. Member for Reigate can replace the Secretary of State in the schedule with the devolved Minister, although I am not in a position to say who that will be since other provisions in the Bill imply that other decisions must be made.
 Where the Bill refers to the Secretary of State in the excepted field—off the top of my head, I am not sure where that happens, but I will have it checked—those responsibilities will not be devolved. Any reference to the Secretary of State in the context of excepted matters will continue to be read as a reference to the Secretary of State. I am more certain in myself that that is clear now; whether others understand it is a matter for them.

Crispin Blunt: I am sure that the point is startlingly obvious, but when one reads the Bill, how can one identify what is excepted and what reserved?

Des Browne: This is becoming a ping-pong match. The hon. Gentleman will have to read another Act of Parliament. The reader needs to know his way around the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is the same in Scotland: to work out what is devolved and what reserved, the reader has to know his way around the Scotland Act 1998. By referring to the Bill and the
 Northern Ireland Act, the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer his question. He will have a good Wednesday doing that.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 46 - Functions of chief inspector

Crispin Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 26, line 30, at end insert—
(k) the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland.'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 181, in page 26, line 30, at end insert—
'(k) Consignia,
(l) the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland,
(m) the Financial Services Authority,
(n) the Inland Revenue.'.
 No. 188, in page 26, line 42, at end insert— 
 '(5A) An inspection carried out by the Chief Inspector of Consignia, the Financial Services Authority or the Inland Revenue may cover only functions relating to the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland.'

Crispin Blunt: The amendment is straightforward. I look forward to hearing arguments from the hon. Member for North Down about the inclusion in the chief inspector's remit of Consignia, the Financial Services Authority and the Inland Revenue as well as the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland. I approach the hon. Lady's amendments with an open mind, and if her arguments are as convincing as I expect them to be, I shall withdraw my amendment in order to allow hers to be put to the Committee.
 The major issue before us is the role of the police ombudsman. It is important that she and her office should be brought within the chief inspector's remit. The reasons for that are blindingly obvious. The ombudsman has an important role in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. Regrettably, she got off to a somewhat unhappy start in her relationship with the Chief Constable and the controversy over her investigation into the Omagh bombings. Clearly, that is to be regretted. The Committee have debated whether to give the police ombudsman additional responsibilities, and I have tabled amendments to that effect. If the ombudsman is to have the important role that she has been given—and perhaps an enlarged role as time goes on—it will be necessary to have some form of inspection to ensure that that office is performing its functions in, at the very least, an administratively effective and competent fashion. That is one of the remits of the inspectorate. 
 It would seem odd that the ombudsman should stand outside the chief inspector's remit. Given all the other bodies that will be subject to the inspectorate, I should hope that the ombudsman and her office would not object to some form of outside inspection of how they carry out their role. That is important. There is also a sense of fairness. Because the role given to the police ombudsman is important in the criminal justice 
 area, there is concern, certainly within the Police Service for Northern Ireland, that it may be possible for that office to behave in a perhaps capricious fashion. It is terribly important that that notion is corrected. If there is some sense in which the police ombudsman can be subject to a set of standards and inspection by the chief inspector, that would help to address the issue of the professional competence of the ombudsman and her staff.

Seamus Mallon: I suggest that the legislated-for role of the police ombudsman would have all credibility removed from it if the amendment were carried. It would render the office inoperable. I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman wants that, but perhaps some people do. After all, who inspects the chief inspector? That is the logical question if the chief inspector is to inspect the ombudsman. Finally, no one from the ombudsman's office is present to refute any allegation or imputation against it. I take it on myself to do so—

Peter Pike: Order. This is an intervention and they must be brief.

Crispin Blunt: The answer as to who inspects the chief inspector is that he is accountable to those who appointed him—the Secretary of State before devolution, and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister thereafter. They in turn are held accountable by Parliament or the Assembly. I have half a notion of the Latin phrase for ''Who guards the guardians'', but I shall not try it.
 The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that this issue relates to confidence in the office of the ombudsman. I do not think that it is appropriate for the ombudsman to sit unregulated outside and above the whole criminal justice framework. Because it has an investigatory function, it is necessary that certain standards of investigation are adhered to. It is a unique role, and the ombudsman and her office are finding their way within the law as laid down. It is necessary, precisely because we need confidence, to be able to say that the standards of conduct in the ombudsman's office are subject to some outside vetting and inspection. 
 That is why I have moved the amendment. The same principle applies to other bodies that have roles in the criminal justice field and there are limited roles for the groups named in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Down. As I have said, I have an entirely open mind about supporting those. If those organisations have a role in criminal justice, they should come within the purview of the chief inspector.

Lady Hermon: To enlighten the hon. Gentleman, I have included Consignia, the Financial Services Agency and the Inland Revenue because I have it from the most reliable of sources—the House of Commons Library—that all those bodies have criminal investigatory powers. Consignia, for example, can investigate postmen who might dispose of letters. I mean, of course, no criticism of postmen.

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Lady gives us a preview of the remarks that she will make on her amendments. She has gone most of the way towards convincing me that her amendment is better than mine. It properly addresses the issue of who has a prosecutorial or investigatory role in the criminal justice system, and it is clear to me that those bodies should come within the ambit of the chief inspector.
 The purpose of the chief inspectorate is to give people confidence in the institutions that will be subject to its attentions. It would be good for the ombudsman to be brought within the ambit of the inspectorate because that would reinforce the confidence of the whole community, especially of the police, that proper standards were being applied. I know that the Police Service for Northern Ireland, at representative level in organisations such as the Police Federation and among the chain of command, is anxious for the amendment to be made. Given the delicate nature of morale in the police service, the amendment would be good for the ombudsman and for the police, because it would reinforce their confidence that the system by which the Police Service for Northern Ireland is be judged will operate fairly.

Lady Hermon: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 181 and 188.
 I considered the functions of the chief inspector as far back as last autumn, so my comments predate Omagh and everything that has happened since then.

Des Browne: I am sure that no one doubts the hon. Lady's word, but I can confirm that I had a conversation with her before the most recent controversy about these issues, as matters of principle rather than matters relating to any individual.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record because that is how matters stood last autumn, and that remains the case.
 I am concerned that the functions of the chief inspector should be set out in a comprehensive list that includes all organisations that have criminal investigatory powers. Last autumn, I suggested that the office of the police ombudsman should be included in the list, which already includes Forensic Science, Northern Ireland, the State Pathologist's Department, the Police Service for Northern Ireland, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, health and social services boards, health and social services trusts and the Compensation Agency. It is a long list, but my amendment would make the list comprehensive. Let us get the Bill right now instead of waiting and having to amend it. 
 I know that the Minister is likely to draw my attention to clause 46(6), which states: 
 ''The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) by— 
 (a) adding any organisation having a role in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland... 
 (b) omitting an organisation, or 
 (c) altering the description of an organisation.''
I am aware that that provision is available to the Secretary of State, but I thought that it was intended to cover organisations that might be created in the future. 
 The current position is that Consignia, the Financial Services Authority, the Inland Revenue and the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland all have criminal investigatory powers. To remind hon. Members who may not have been present when I raised the matter with the Minister on Second Reading—although given their great interest in Northern Ireland and the reform of the criminal justice system, I hope that they were present—he said: 
 ''That issue has exercised the hon. Lady for some time and she and I have discussed it previously. I can give an assurance that the organisations that will be subject to inspection by the inspectorate will be kept constantly under review. That is why the clause has been drafted as it has . . . All organisations that have criminal investigatory powers and powers to prosecute in Northern Ireland are being considered for incorporation in the list.''—[Official Report, 21 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 690.] 
We have the opportunity to make the list comprehensive. Amendment No. 188 makes it obvious that the power of the chief inspector to investigate is limited to the criminal justice functions that might be performed by Consignia, the Financial Services Authority and the Inland Revenue. The wording is similar to that used for the limitation on the investigation into the health and social services boards and health and social services trusts. It is not a free-for-all; there are defined limitations. I want the Bill to be right. We have the opportunity—let us make it comprehensive.

Patsy Calton: The hon. Member for North Down has made the point, but I would emphasise that it seems only right for any organisation with an ability to bring prosecutions or to investigate matters that could lead to a prosecution to be investigated by the chief inspector. Amendment No. 188 stipulates that the chief inspector should only investigate matters pertaining to Consignia, the FSA and the Inland Revenue if they relate to Northern Ireland, as the hon. Lady said. I support the amendments.

Des Browne: This debate is important for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it gives me an opportunity to dispel some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh about the functions and roles of the chief inspector. It is a pity that the debate is taking place in extra time because, for example, the hon. Member for Reigate is accompanied only by his Whip, the Liberal Democrats have only 50 per cent. representation and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) is not here. His absence particularly concerns me because of the lengths to which I went to ensure that his party was represented in Committee in response to what I thought was a reasonable concern that it had not hitherto been represented in debates and had a contribution to make. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman's party has not taken up that opportunity, except to put one minor question.
 The issue before us is important. The other point—

Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Des Browne: No. The hon. Member for Reigate might want me to give way, or to add to what he has to say, when he hears my comments. This is a helpful opportunity for debate. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman used it—for blatant political reasons—to make a pejorative remark about the ombudsman, although he cannot possibly have had the opportunity to read in full either the ombudsman's report or the Chief Constable's response to that report. He cannot have done so since they are not in the public domain and are not available to him.
 I have had that opportunity. Even having done so, I find the complexity of the matter and the sensitivity of the issues to be such that I would not make any qualitative remark about the report until I had given it considerably more thought. I say that with a background of professional involvement in investigations that have ranged over a year and have produced detailed reports, such as those in relation to Omagh. It is a great pity that people take it upon themselves to make ill-informed, pejorative and partial remarks. They ought, first, to consider the effect on the people of Omagh, who were the victims of that atrocious—

Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Des Browne: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman should content himself. He will get an opportunity to come back, but I shall not give way at this point. He raised the issue and then sat down. I deplore the fact that he raised it in this context, especially as he could not have informed himself in sufficient detail to be able to reach the judgment that he offered, and I deplore the fact that he did it apparently without regard for the effect that it would have on the people most directly affected. I say publicly that I will deplore it if he does that again. We should all think long and carefully about what we do and say on such important matters. I am not taking sides. I want to be absolutely objective. The Secretary of State will make public his views on the matter in due course. It helps not a jot to throw such spanners into the works. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will want to share that part of Hansard with certain people, but he can share this bit as well.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for giving for giving way. If he had not been so anxious to indulge in that rant, he might have listened to precisely what I said. All that I regretted was the controversy that arose from the ombudsman's investigation. I did not take a view on the merits of either side. I was careful not to do so. The Minister has simply ascribed to me what he believed my position to be, rather than what it is—or what I said it was. If the record shows that I was simply regretting the controversy that had occurred as a result of the ombudsman's investigation, quite apart from the merits of the investigation—the Minister is right to say that I am not in a position to make a judgment—

Peter Pike: Order. I must return us to the amendment.

Crispin Blunt: May I finish the point, Mr. Pike?

Peter Pike: Briefly.

Crispin Blunt: Thank you, Mr. Pike.
 The Minister made a serious allegation. If he examines the record and if my remarks bear the import that he put on them, I shall withdraw them because, as he properly pointed out, I am not entitled to draw those conclusions. However, I am entitled to regret the controversy with the Chief Constable that was caused by the investigation. If that was the weight of my remarks—it was certainly what I intended—I hope that the Minister will withdraw his remarks.

Des Browne: I will of course read the record. However, I heard what I heard, and words on the page do not always bear the implications that they clearly bore when they were said. I have no doubt that other members of the Committee heard what was said and will know exactly what was intended.
 In order that the Committee should understand my views on the amendment, I shall explain what the Government believe the chief inspector's principal roles and responsibilities should be. Although the chief inspector will be appointed by the Secretary of State, it will be done independent of Government. He or she will be responsible for ensuring that organisations within the criminal justice system achieve their internal objectives, as well as those set by the Government. The chief inspector will be charged with considering issues of cross-cutting concern, and I see the inspector as being uniquely placed to examine issues such as delays in the progress of cases in the criminal justice system. 
 The individual inspections of what I would call agencies and the thematic inspections that would cross-cut agencies will be designed to ensure effectiveness and efficiency in the criminal justice system and to ensure a more joined-up system of justice. They are intended to make the system more transparent and accountable, two of the principles at the heart of the Bill and the review. I say that to give a degree of reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh. It is not intended to give the chief inspector the sort of powers that some have suggested he should have or that the office was intended to have. The question is one of administration and is not to do with the way in which individual cases are dealt with. In that sense, it does not concern the ombudsman. 
 My second point is that those hon. Members who know their way around the review will recognise that, in general, the Bill's provisions faithfully reflect the review's findings and recommendations, including the list of organisations to be covered. On this particular matter, the Bill does just that. Since the review was published, and since the understanding of the chief inspector's role has grown, particularly among the organisations covered by the provision, there has been general agreement that the description of the organisation should be a matter for inspection. However, there have been further suggestions, and the hon. Member for North Down is not alone in making them, that the list should be extended to other organisations.
 One of the significant omissions from the list is the courts themselves. They are not on the list in any capacity. Suggestions have been made to me that they should be included. I understand, therefore, the suggestions made by the hon. Members for Reigate and for North Down about extending the list of organisations included in subsection (1). Whether or not it was intended to be for such a purpose, I would have thought that the Secretary of State would use clause 46(6) to add organisations to the list if it were thought not to be comprehensive. That subsection would also be used for adding new organisations, were any to come on stream. 
 Since one of the principle purposes of having a chief inspector is to allow cross-cutting inspections, it is crucial that we provide the office of chief inspector with access to all the relevant organisations with a role to play in the criminal justice system. Otherwise, the chief inspector is likely to come to a block that will prevent them from performing their role. That is why the Bill includes clause 46(6)—to allow, by order, the list to be amended. 
 On Second Reading, I said that I intended to review, and I am currently reviewing, the list of organisations that the inspectorate must inspect. My review so far suggests that it will have to be added to, but it is important that we consult any organisations proposed for inclusion before they are added to the list. The review's recommendations have been in the public domain for some time, and those organisations that were listed in the list that is reflected in the Bill have known what was coming and have had an opportunity to contribute to the consultation process. They have engaged with officials and others—sometimes at our instigation—so they know what is coming. 
 The other organisations--I include Consignia as a neutral example--have not expected this new requirement to be imposed on them, and it would not be appropriate or fair on them to impose it now without consultation. For that reason, I give an undertaking that consultation will take place with the organisations that the hon. Lady lists in her amendment, and other organisations as they come to my attention as having a role in the criminal justice system. On that understanding, I invite both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Reigate to withdraw their amendments. 
 My problem is that I cannot give a guarantee of when that consultation process will be concluded, but I shall do everything that I can to ensure that it is concluded before Report stage.

Lady Hermon: For clarification, has any consultation taken place with the police ombudsman about the proposal to extend the chief inspector's investigative powers to her office? I ask that only because reference was made to it at a conference last autumn.

Peter Pike: Order. Before we go on, as only one amendment is being moved at the moment, Lady Hermon will have the right to indicate whether she wants to press her amendment to a Division. Her amendment would then be moved formally.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down for her intervention. Some communication has taken place with the police ombudsman, but it would be inappropriate of me to describe that as consultation.
 My plan is to identify as comprehensive a list as possible before indulging in consultation with the organisations. I suspect that, with organisations such as Consignia, such a provision would take a bit more explaining than with other organisations, as they would want to know why they had been incorporated into the inspection process. Therefore, the list might not be comprehensive at Report stage. However, I need first to go through the process of consultation. I cannot comment on discussions that have taken place at conferences or elsewhere, which have involved people other than myself, but I accept that there is an issue here. We need a comprehensive list, and I shall do my best to make one before the Bill completes its stages in the House.

Crispin Blunt: I hear what the Minister says about dealing with this matter on Report. I would be happier if the requirement were to remove people from a list that the Committee had placed them on, rather than proceeding from consultation to the compiling of a list and additions at a later stage.
 The hon. Member for North Down made a convincing case for the addition of the three institutions to which she refers in her amendment. If she can tell me that she intends to press that amendment to a Division, I shall withdraw amendment No. 31.

Lady Hermon: It may help the hon. Gentleman to decide what to do if I tell him that I am reassured by the Minister's commitment to have a comprehensive list by Report stage. That persuades me, with full confidence and peace of mind, not to press my amendment to a vote.

Crispin Blunt: I thank the hon. Lady for that information, but my own judgment is different. It would be better to have the police ombudsman in the list at this stage. That would come as no surprise to the police ombudsman, with whom, as the Minister told the Committee, there has been some contact, although the Minister would not say that it represented a formal consultation over the list of the inspectorate.
 It is important that the Committee expresses a view at this stage. Opportunities will occur at later stages of the Bill, both on Report and in another place, for the Government to remove the mention of the police ombudsman if circumstances merit them doing so, although that would hugely surprise me. Therefore, I intend to press amendment No. 31 to a Division.

Lady Hermon: I must urge the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the commitment that the Minister gave to make the list comprehensive. It is ill-advised to take from the agreement that we have been given for a comprehensive list and single out one office.

Crispin Blunt: I understand the hon. Lady's reservations, but she and I part company over the merits and practicality of the matter. I take into consideration the time that we may have for Report stage. We have no idea with how much time the Government will grace the proceedings on Report, and we may never have the possibility to consider this measure in the form of an Opposition amendment, should the Government choose not to introduce it following consultation. Therefore, I hope that she will forgive me if my experience of dealing with Her Majesty's Government means that, at this stage, I am not prepared entirely to take them at their word, largely because of the way in which they handle legislation in this place. That is why I want to press the amendment to a Division.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Betts.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eight o'clock till Thursday 7 February at half-past Nine o'clock.